Edwin A. Van Petten, deputy disciplinary administrator, argued the cause and
was on the formal
complaint for petitioner.

Donald J. Francis, respondent, argued the cause pro se.

Per Curiam: This is an original proceeding in discipline against the
respondent,
Donald J. Francis, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas, whose business
address is Gardner, Kansas.

The facts were stipulated to by the respondent as follows:

"1. Donald J. Francis is an attorney at law, Kansas Attorney Registration No.
16696. . . . The
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1994.

"2. On May 3, 1994, Betty McSpadden was involved in a car accident.
Thereafter, in
February, 1996, Ms. McSpadden retained the Respondent to represent her regarding injuries she
suffered in that accident. In May, 1996, the Respondent filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of Ms.
McSpadden.

"3. During the course of the litigation, discovery requests were made by the
defendant. The
Respondent failed to comply with the discovery requests. Additionally, the Respondent failed to
prosecute Ms. McSpadden's case. Eventually, based on the Respondent's failure to prosecute,
Ms.
McSpadden's lawsuit was dismissed on April 15, 1997.

"4. Throughout the summer months of 1998, Ms. McSpadden tried, on numerous
occasions, to
contact the
Respondent
regarding the
status of the
litigation.
However, Ms.
McSpadden's
attempts proved
unsuccessful.

"5. The Respondent did have one conversation with Ms. McSpadden after the
case was
dismissed. During that conversation, the Respondent communicated with Ms. McSpadden as
though
the litigation was still pending.

"6. To date, the Respondent has not notified Ms. McSpadden that the lawsuit was
dismissed.

"7. The Respondent claims that, during this time period, he suffered from
depression and was
unable to work effectively. He failed to present clear and convincing evidence from a mental
health
professional regarding his present or past mental condition. However, the Respondent's assertion
that
he has had a prior mental condition which impaired his ability to represent Ms. McSpadden was
presented to the panel as an undisputed fact which was considered by the panel in arriving at the
Conclusions of Law.

"8. The Respondent made no attempt to withdraw from the representation of Ms.
McSpadden. Additionally, the Respondent failed to inform Ms. McSpadden of the difficulties that
he
was experiencing and of the status of the litigation.

"9. The dismissal of her lawsuit precludes Ms. McSpadden from recovering her
out-of-pocket
expenses which are in excess of $300, as well as any damages that she may have recovered for the
injuries that she suffered and continues to suffer."

Based on the findings of fact, the disciplinary panel concluded:

"1. [Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct] KRPC 1.3 [1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot.
294] requires
lawyers to 'act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.' Id.
In this
case, the Respondent violated this rule by failing to comply with discovery requests and by
failing to prosecute Ms. McSpadden's law suit.

"2. The Respondent violated KRPC 1.4 [1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 303]. That rule
requires
attorneys to keep clients 'reasonably informed about the status of a matter . . .' Id.
The Respondent
violated this rule when he failed to return telephone calls and when he led Ms. McSpadden to
believe
that the action remained active after it had been dismissed by the Court for lack of prosecution.

"3. KRPC 1.16(a)(2) [1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 352] provides that 'a lawyer shall
not represent a
client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client
if:
the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the
client.' Id. By his own admission, the Respondent's failures with regard to Ms.
McSpadden's case were
directly attributable to his impaired mental condition. The Respondent should have realized that
he
was unable to effectively represent Ms. McSpadden and should have withdrawn from that
representation.

"4. By failing to comply with discovery requests and by failing to prosecute Ms.
McSpadden's
law suit, the Respondent violated KRPC 3.2 [1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 362]. That rule requires
attorneys to 'make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the
client.'
Id."

We adopt the panel's findings. The panel recommended imposition of discipline in
placing the respondent on 2 years' probation, subject to certain terms and conditions. We
agree with the panel's recommendations.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that imposition of discipline against the respondent
be suspended and that the respondent be placed on probation for the period of 2 years on the
terms and conditions hereinafter set out.

1. J. Patrick Flanigan, an attorney in Overland Park, Kansas, will supervise the
respondent's probation and supervise his practice for a period of 2 years from the date
of this opinion.

2. Flanigan will be acting as an officer and an agent of the court as supervisor
of probation in monitoring the legal practice of the respondent.

3. Flanigan shall be afforded all immunities granted by Supreme Court Rule
223 (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 269) during the course of his activities as directed by this
order. On a quarterly basis, Flanigan shall report to the Disciplinary Administrator as
to the respondent's progress or any problems he observes. Any material deviation
from proper practice shall be immediately reported to the Disciplinary Administrator.

4. Respondent shall reimburse McSpadden any out-of-pocket expenses
incurred in her lawsuit as a result of her automobile accident.

5. The respondent shall continue counseling and shall furnish reports of that
treatment to the office of the Disciplinary Administrator at such times and intervals as
established by the Disciplinary Administrator.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent shall not violate the KRPC.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event the respondent fails to abide by the
conditions set out herein, a show cause order shall issue to him, and this court shall take
whatever disciplinary action it deems just and proper, including disbarment, without further
formal proceedings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order be published in the official Kansas
Reports and that the costs of the proceeding be assessed to the respondent.